THE ANALYTICAL ARGUMENT
We must arrive at the same conclusion, if we consider the subject in
an analytical way. For example: suppose a person, hitherto
unacquainted not only with the general peculiarities of Christian
churches, but also with Christianity itself, were to enter a
cathedral; or (which will be a fairer case) were to visit a Catholic
country, and examine its churches as a whole, would he not, if
possessed of only ordinary intelligence, observe that the cross form,
for example, was of most common occurrence, and, in the case of the
larger buildings, was perhaps the only plan adopted? And would he not
then naturally inquire why there should be this marked preference for
a form, in itself inconvenient for purposes of hearing or seeing,
[Footnote 21] and open to great mechanical objections, such as the
almost resistless pressure of the four arms on the piers which stand
at the angles of intersection?
[Footnote 21: That is, a Catholic _arrangement_ of the church being
presumed.]
But if he learnt that the religion for which these temples were
designed was that of the Cross, he would at once see the propriety of
this ground plan, and would confidently and truly conclude that this
form was chosen in order to bring the Cross, by this symbolism,
vividly and constantly before the eyes of the worshippers. To deny
intended symbolism, in the case of such a person, would {lxii} clearly
be absurd: shall it be less obvious to us? Our traveller would
probably, being satisfied on this point, examine these buildings more
closely. He would find an altar raised conspicuously above the
surrounding level; and for this he might discover a practical reason;
but why in so many cases (so many as well nigh to make a rule) are the
steps either _three_ or some multiple of three? Surely the fundamental
doctrine of the Holy Trinity would, if explained to him, sufficiently
account for this all but universal arrangement. Why, again, in every
case does a screen separate one part of the church from the other?
When our inquirer learns the principle of the separation of laity and
clergy, this arrangement also will be at once intelligible and
figurative. How unreasonable would the position of the font by the
door appear to him, till he learnt the symbolical reason for its being
placed there! And we may here remark that the practice of the last
generation in removing old fonts, or using basins for substitutes, or
in placing new fonts, near the altar, shows clearly enough that
convenience and utility would have pointed out a very different place
for the font from what is assigned by the canon, on symbolical
grounds; grounds adduced in this case, as it would seem, to give
weight to a decision so clearly opposed to all merely practical and
obvious reasons. Again, the marked deviation of the orientation of the
chancel from that of the nave, would be quite inexplicable till the
beautiful and affecting symbolism of the arrangement were pointed out.
Again, it has not been left merely to the meditative ecclesiologist to
observe that Christian architecture has as decided a characteristic of
verticality, as Pagan architecture had of horizontalism. A mere artist
could not fail of marking the contrast between Beauvais and the
temples of Paestum. {lxiii } The contrast must then be admitted: but
how must we explain it? Surely no accident could have developed the
grovelling Pagan into the aspiring Gothic. What mechanical reasons
could produce Westminster from even the Parthenon? But is not the
phenomenon explained when we see in towering pier, spire, and
pinnacle, the symbolical exhibition of that religion which alone
aspires to things above, nay more, the figurative commemoration of
that Resurrection itself, which alone originates, and only justifies,
the same heavenward tendency. But if this be true; if these
acknowledged peculiarities in Christian architecture be utterly
unintelligible on any other supposition than this of a symbolical
meaning, surely it is not unreasonable to receive so ready a solution
of the difficulty: and, the principle admitted, why may not reasons of
the same figurative nature be assigned for other arrangements, in
themselves on any other interpretation not only meaningless but
obviously useless or absurd?
{lxiv}